Kathleen Parker: Obama & Edwards are Teh Gay!

When it starts looking bad for them, count on conservatives to making ridiculous smears that show how bigoted they are.  Fresh from the “liberal media” pages of the Washington Post, courtesy of our friends at Sadly, No!:Welp, here’s yet another low reached by Fred Hiatt’s allegedly prestigious op-ed page:The Democrats Hug It OutBy Kathleen ParkerWell, [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/17/kathleen-parker-obama-edwards-are-teh-ga
y/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Pelosi’s reception in Iraq
‘nicer’ than Rice’s.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is in Iraq this weekend in a “surprise” visit to pay “respects to our troops and at the same time learn more about what the situation is on the ground.” Time notes that “in many ways she got a nicer arrival treatment than the last senior female American official to appear in Baghdad,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

Rice slipped into Iraq in January much the same way Pelosi did today ? stealthily, with a terse confirmation by the U.S. embassy offering few details of the agenda. But within hours of Rice’s arrival, TV news was crackling with word of it, and soon thereafter a volley of mortars fell on the Green Zone in an obvious message from Rice’s detractors. No rockets or mortars were heard heading into the Green Zone today as word of Pelosi’s presence hit the Iraqi airwaves in what amounted to a daytime news blip.

Some Iraqi officials, however, did not receive Pelosi fondly, in part due to her advocacy of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. On her “first day on the ground Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not make an effort to see her,” Time adds.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/17/pelosis-reception-in-iraq-nicer-than-rices/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Hillary Clinton Going All In In Kentucky

Hillary Clinton held an event in Frankfort, Kentucky today and, according to CNN, intends to be there tomorrow and Monday as well, perhaps event through election day on Tuesday. More from The Swamp: [T]here will be no head-to-head combat before[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mydd/~3/292564498/872

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

No Child Left Behind, Football Edition

I am a huge advocate of education, public education specifically. As a supporter of our public schools I have painfully witnessed the failure of No Child Left Behind. NCLB was designed to create accountability in our public schools. That in itself is great. We have to figure out a way to hold chronically under-performing schools accountable. But we must offer them support and pull them forward with the realization that their failure is our failure. One of the biggest drawbacks to NCLB is that it punishes under-performing districts, further crippling their ability to improve. One post will not even do justice to the inadequacy of NCLB.

I found this on Daily Kos in a user diary. If you are fan of football, this will put NCLB in understandable terms.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND - FOOTBALL VERSION, author unknown,
(suggested by Bruce Patterson, Central Michigan University)

1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST win the championship. If a team does
not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable. If after two years they have not won the championship their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL they do win the championship.

2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time, even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL!

3. Talented players will be asked to work out on their own, without instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in football, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't like football.

4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th game.

This will create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimum goals. If no child gets ahead, then no
child gets left behind. If parents do not like this new law, they are encouraged to vote for vouchers and support private schools that can screen out the non-athletes and prevent their children from having to go to school with bad football players.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/GsAJ/~3/292698031/no-child-left-behind-fo
otball-edition.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Us vs. Them

The New Republic's Peter Scoblic has a great op-ed in the Los Angeles Times about Bush's comments[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/292588800/showDiary.do

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Saturday Night Open Thread

A few points. The most important, we all are relieved that Ted Kennedy appears to be fine.

Next, Big Brown is a Super horse.

Third, when I criticize the delegate selection rules and the outcome of the pledged delegate process and the MI/FL fiasco I am in no way criticizing Barack Obama as he has done exactly what he was supposed to do. I tip my hat to him. He has behaved honorably throughout the process in that he is trying to win the nomination. My critique is of the process and the organization that organized the nomination process and made the disastrous and rule breaking decisions regarding FL/MI.

Finally, this is an Open Thread.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/292567107/3470

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Mission Accomplished, Postdated ...

From CNN ...At a Friday night town hall in Oregon, Senator Hillary Clinton criticized Senator John McCain for his speech predicting victory in Iraq by the end of his first term."It sounded a lot like 'Mission Accomplished,' only postponed into 2013,"[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/292595652/195651.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Victories In The Global War For The Commons:
France and Montville Spit Out The Shock Doctrines GMOs

Over the last weeks Big Mutant Meals' effort to seize control of humanity's food supply supply failed in France and Montville, Maine. The Frankencorps' two decade long propaganda campaign also chewed dirt - despite a servile corporate media, almost 30[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/17/victories-in-the-global-war-for-the-commons-fra
nce-and-montville-spit-out-the-shock-doctines-gmos/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Repub Congressman Diagnoses GOP Illness, Declares
Them Terminal

Tom Davis is one of the few Republican office holders whose strategic analyses I respect as being largely free of ideology.  He's a past chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and one of the few Republicans who has voted against his party even when he was pressured to go along with the crowd.  He's not a bipartisan nice guy.  As chair of the Oversight committee, he blocked any serious investigations of the Bush administration, and since Democrats gained control of Congress he's been an obstructionist on many issues that could be politically damaging to the GOP or the Bush administration.  He's an adversary, not someone I like, but as a political strategist, he's someone to take seriously.  

Thus, it's noteworthy that Davis has written a 21 page memo to his colleagues with suggestions for what they must do to prevent disaster.  (Davis himself is not running for reelection.)  The entire memo(pdf) is worth a read.  But there are two pieces worth highlighting.  

I point this out because Obama’s appeal is to the liberal cultural base of the Democratic Party, not to its liberal economic base.  His connection to high income suburbs, the granola belt and college towns, is strong, but his connection to poorer whites, rural voters and other voters who may be susceptible to the Democrats’ message on the economy is not yet demonstrated.  Conservative value voters are a long way from being sold on Obama, even while they feel pinched by global trade, a soft housing market and high gas prices.  But Republicans have to hold these voters to have any chance in 2008.  

The Bush campaign focused like a laser on these voters, whether it was mailing the subscription list to "Guns and Ammo" magazine, to advertising on Christian Radio, to voter registration drives at conservative churches.  In 2004, it was all about "the base’ and driving turnout.

2008 is different.  Demographically, the nation is more diverse and more urbanized than in 2004.  The Iraq war has proved to be the ultimate cultural issue, fueling and giving oxygen to the cultural left, as well as planting doubts in many swing voters minds about the direction of the country.  The economy is softening and gas prices are skyrocketing, giving Obama an opening to court conservative value voters who are hurting economically.  Fortunately, Hillary Clinton has driven a wedge between these competing constituencies, keeping them in play at the Presidential level.  It begs the question of how these voters will vote in Congressional races.

One can take this analysis too far—and I think Davis does—but he's on solid footing in pointing out that the zeal for Obama doesn't emanate from the more economically populist factions within the Democratic primary electorate.  I think it's with populist independents that he needs to do the most immediate work solidifying voters who should be his.  Based on the results in Mississippi, these voters don't appear to be overly hostile to Obama, because using Obama against Travis Childers didn't work.  

However, I think Davis is correct that Hillary Clinton has created a bit of a problem by her divisive attempt to attack Obama as an elitist.  It's damage that can be repaired, but it will be require some serious work by both Hillary and Bill Clinton to fix things up.  

Davis also recognizes that the Republican "brand" has been grievously damaged and in dire need of a retooling:

It is clear from Congressional voting in special elections, in once safe districts in Illinois and Louisiana, that voters at the Congressional level, when given a choice, do not want more of the same.  Our attacks on Democrats for taxes do not ring true.  Our message is stale.  Without a clear change in direction, Congressional Republicans can count on more Louisiana’s and Illinois’s.  If we were a business that had been losing market share, would we simply wait for our competition’s product to blow up?  Or, would we re-tool, innovate and make the appropriate changes.  They don’t like our dog food.  They may not like the Democrat’s either, but for now, and through November, they appear to be buying it.  

My suggestion?  Don’t just put a new wrapper on the product and hire a new sales crew.  Let’s revamp, consistent with our principles and remember that this election is about independent voters.  Even if we get every Republican out to vote, we lose without Independents.  Forget the Democrats.  They’ve been waiting to get back since the Florida recount.  It’s all about the Independents, or we drop to a 170-180 seat permanent minority.  Yes, we’ll be comfortable in our caucus, but we’ll be irrelevant for the next decade.

But here's the problem for Republicans (and the opportunity for Democrats): there's no evidence to suggest that the Republicans will change their approach.  As Davis admitted in an interview:

I mean, things change hard and when your base, by the way, when there is seepage and your brand name is going down and your party registration is going down, the people that are left tend to be the hard core.   And it makes it harder and harder to change.

Since the 1990's, the Republicans have been willing hostages to their base.  Republican office holders are unwilling to go against their base, because they know they will be attacked by their base, and quite possibly targeted by fundie groups and Club for Growth, and most likely draw an extremist primary opponent (like the ones who've defeated Republican incumbent moderates Wayne Gilchrest and Joe Schwarz, and who blocked Davis' own path to the Republican nomination for Senate in Virginia).  

I don't have any sympathy for the Republicans.  But I do believe it must be horrible knowing that if they don't eschew the extreme right positions they've adopted over the years, they will get slaughtered in the general election, but breaking from the extreme right means they will not make it through party primaries.  

It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of people.  

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/292556147/2778

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

US Policy; Attack Adversaries. Appease Americans.
No Diplomacy

Don't Bomb Iran

copyright ? 2008 Betsy L. Angert

Days ago, United States Commander-In-Chief, George W. Bush reminded us of the need to remain vigilant.  He admonished anyone who might think to talk with those who politically, philosophically, or perhaps physically have the potential to oppose "us."  The President of the world's superpower 'wisely' proclaimed ""Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."  America's leader addressed Israeli lawmakers and said, "We have heard this foolish delusion before.  As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.'  We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."  As a protective parent might  alert an easily frighten child, the Mister Bush forewarns his citizens.  "Do not speak to strangers."  
US policy under Bush is to attack or alienate.  The Administration insists we will not appease or engage in diplomacy with what we identify as rogue nations.   Persons classified as terrorists are to be threatened, and possibly killed.  The President of the United States wishes to ensure he protects the public.  Punitive measures multiply in a nation once defined as democratic.

Citizens in a country founded on the principles of equalitarianism no longer practice as they preach.  Americans or the Administration  ignore what is too often real; statistically, evidence shows those we know may be more dangerous.  Close associates can harm "us."  Those we have yet to encounter in our daily lives are not scary; they are unfamiliar.  Hence, frequently, much to our own chagrin, people follow the lead of penal persons, just as we have in the United States.  Today, American citizens are easily appeased, and willing to attack.  We are willing to alienate our allies and all others.  We spread democracy only to destroy the tenet.

People whose names, faces, customs, cultures, and skin color differs from "ours" are classified as aliens.  Those who we do not speak with are considered adversaries, for "we" have not taken the time to become acquainted.  "We" assume the people who are foreign to "us" are antagonistic.  Americans, seem willing to dismiss the accepted wisdom; friendships are formed.  Foes are those we do not know, and thus, fear.

That said, the defensive stance adopted by the paternalistic President presumes that "we" just as little children, are less learned.  Therefore, we will give all our toys to another tot, or to the big-bad-boogie-man, he vehemently told "us" not to play with.  The word "appeasement," as referenced in Mister Bush's speech does not speak to diplomacy, a skillful communication between countries; it connotes the giving of gifts.

Britain and France pursued a policy of appeasement in the hope that Hitler would not drag Europe into another world war.  Appeasement expressed the widespread British desire to heal the wounds of World War I and to correct what many British officials regarded as the injustices of the Versailles Treaty.

Guilt motivates many a parent who realizes, in the past, they were overly punitive.  A child, who chose actions that were combative and cruel may not learn to be kind, if a guardian slams and damns the young person, and then confines the lad or lass to a barren room.  An adolescent starved for love, stripped of all possessions, severely reprimanded, and forced to submit reparations will not thrive.  When a tot or a teen is stripped of a sense of self, as well as deprived of any dignity survival is a struggle.  It is no wonder, upon reflection, the parents or persons in power were remorseful.  The Versailles Treaty denied the German people all that made life whole.

This treaty held Germany solemnly responsible for WWI. Germany was forced to pay reparations totaling 132,000,000,000 in gold marks, they lost 1/8 of its land, all of its colonies, all overseas financial assets, a new map of Europe was carved out of Germany, and the German military was basically non-existent.  To the German people they were being ruthlessly punished for a war not only were not responsible for but had to fight.  The main terms of the
Versailles Treaty were:

(1) the surrender of all German colonies as League of Nations mandates
(2) the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France
(3) cession of Eupen-Malmedy to Belgium, Memel to Lithuania, the Hultschin district to Czechoslovakia, Poznania, parts of East Prussia and Upper Silesia to Poland
(4) Danzig to become a free city
(5) plebiscites to be held in northern Schleswig to settle the Danish-German frontier
(6) occupation and special status for the Saar under French control
(7) demilitarization and a fifteen-year occupation of the Rhineland
(8)  German reparations of ?6,600 million
(9) a ban on the union of Germany and Austria
(10) an acceptance of Germany's guilt in causing the war
(11) provision for the trial of the former Kaiser and other war leaders
(12) limitation of Germany's army to 100,000 men with no conscription, no tanks, no heavy artillery, no poison-gas supplies, no aircraft, and no airships
(13) the limitation of the German Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, with no submarines

Germany signed the Versailles Treaty under protest.  The USA Congress refused to ratify the treaty.  Many people in France and Britain were angry that there was no trial of the Kaiser or the other war leaders.

The treaty devastated Germany politically and economically.  Because of the treaty, many Germans were desperate to find a new leader to get them out of the Great Depression, which they blamed on the extravagant reparations they had to pay to the Allies.

A chastised child ultimately will not sacrifice their soul.  They will rebel and revolt, as Germany did.  Perhaps, Neville Chamberlain and those who chose "appeasement" overreacted as parents, or as people often do.  Too often, an abusive authority figure will engage in one extreme behavior or another.  Penalties and presents do help a youngster to learn.  Neither deed will deliver a child from "evil."  Calm, careful conversations help create a union between mother, father, and child.  When Moms, Dads, or government officials love the other and self enough to empathetically listen reverent relationships grow.  The same is true when we speak of nations.  Negotiations are necessary if peace is to become a possibility.  We do not war with those who work well with "us."  Composure cultivated in conversations evokes cooperation.

Notwithstanding, the veracity that talk can educate and place a distressed child at ease, country or diplomat, Americans are asked to avoid discussion with those our "leaders" deemed dictators or terrorists.  "We," the people are expected to forget, as George W. Bush expressed not too long ago.  On February 13, 2006, just over two years earlier, Commander-In-Chief Bush avowed his desire to resolve disagreements with Iran in an irenic manner.  The President of the United States proclaimed the potential nuclear crisis need not be a cause for confrontation.  After talks in Washington with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the decisive Mister Bush said the allied leaders agreed; the issue must be solved "diplomatically by working together."  However, as is evident, for persons who dominate, the definitions for "diplomacy" and "peaceful" are fluid, as is the description of democracy.  Merriam-Webster offers  . . .

de?moc?ra?cy
1 a: government by the people; especially:  rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3. capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic Party in the United States (from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy- C. M. Roberts)
4. the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

What may be thought odd is, in a nation founded on the principles of social equality, there are elite 'leaders.'  These elected officials believe they must assure the common folk, it is best not to speak with our "enemies."  In the United States, in practice, it seems democracy is a disciplinary dictum.  The President envisions himself as a penal parent might.

Might we also muse of the contradiction?  In a country of equals the race, religion, or social rank of an individual might reduce the presumed significance of a fellow citizen.  Here in America, too often one neighbor is the nemesis of another.  How could that be?  We might ponder another paradox.  If every individual is worthy, one of no more value than any other, why are there privileged people who have power over the populace?  We may know not why; nonetheless, we are aware those in authority tell average Americans, 'Diplomacy would be pernicious.'  The incongruity of the situation does not escape observant historians.

Academics who study the democratic system note Americans have less social equality than we like to think we do.  Citizens of this country are as those in a family where retaliatory parents rule.  The word "family" connotes a connection.  Yet, when guardians are not caregivers and are instead castigators.  "family' is but the facade.

Yet, just as in a dysfunctional home where the relatives wish to believe all is well, in this "progressive" nation, we may wish to believe the system works.  Americans firmly assert the present is far better than the past was, and the future will bring greater improvements.  We reassure ourselves with charts and graphs.  We watch market reports and read research that validates what we wish to hold as truth.

Admittedly, the average American accepts that in this affluent and democratic nation problems persist.  Income inequity has always been a constant; it remains pervasive in the States.  Here, in the richest country in the world, in a nation where people are taught to believe everyone is equal, opportunities are not.  Most dismiss the imbalance as temporary.  Certainly, the prospect for change is plausible.  Shortcomings are the effect of economic growth.  Corrections will come, sooner or later.  Perhaps tomorrow will bring a better day.  Of course, it will.  Americans know how to grow an economy.  With expansion, earnings increase.  People prosper, equally.

Most of "us" believe that democracy has survived each trial and tribulation, and a government of the people, as we presume ours to be, will continue to thrive.  Yet; perchance, we have been persuaded to have faith as we do.  Democracy is best.  Nothing functions better.

This is a powerful assumption.  It may be tested by reflecting upon the fact that, despite American progress, the society has been forced to endure sundry movements of protest.  In our effort to address the inconvenient topic of protest, our need to be intellectually consistent -- while thinking within the framework of continuous progress -- has produced a number of explanations about the nature of dissent in America.  Closely followed, these arguments are not really explanations at all, but rather the assertion of more presumptions that have the effect of defending the basic intuition about progress itself.  The most common of these explanations rests upon what is perceived to be a temporary malfunction of the economic order: people protest when "times are hard."  When times stop being "hard," people stop protesting and things return to "normal" -- that is to say, progress is resumed.

Unfortunately, history does not support the notion that mass protest movements develop because of hard times.  Depressed economies or exploitive arrangements of power and privilege may produce lean years or even lean lifetimes for millions of people, but the historical evidence is conclusive that they do not produce mass political insurgency.  The simple fact of the matter is that, in ways that affect mind and body, times have been "hard" for most humans throughout human history and for most of that period people have not been in rebellion.  Indeed, traditionalists in a number of societies have often pointed in glee to this passivity, choosing to call it "apathy" and citing it as a justification for maintaining things as they are.

This apparent absence of popular vigor is traceable, however, not to apathy but to the very raw materials of history -- that complex of rules, manners, power relationships, and memories that collectively comprise what is called culture.  "The masses" do not rebel in instinctive response to hard times and exploitation because they have been culturally organized by their societies not to rebel.  They have, instead, been instructed in deference.  Needless to say, this is the kind of social circumstance that is not readily apparent to the millions who live within it.

The lack of visible mass political activity on the part of modern industrial populations is a function of how these societies have been shaped by the various economic or political elites who fashioned them.  In fundamental ways, this shaping process (which is now quite mature in America) bears directly not only upon our ability to grasp the meaning of American Populism, but our ability to understand protest generally and, most important of all, on our ability to comprehend the prerequisites for democracy itself.

Perhaps, the words of Professor Lawrence Goodwyn help to explain why Americans believe people elsewhere are complacent.  In the United States, the public presumes people abroad will not create change on their own.  They must be taught to do as the American Administration thinks wise.  This assessment of what occurs within our homeland may expose why "we" believe democracy can be forcibly imposed on other nations.  The theory Goodwyn offers helps illustrate why in a "democratic" nation the deciders dictate policy for one and for all planet wide.  However, the hypothesis may not be accurate.

In other territories, protest may not have been trained out of the populace.  Perchance, residents in other regions were not appeased with material goods meant to buy love and obedience?  We cannot be certain for there is so little that Americans are allowed to know of the persons our power elite wish to remain estranged from "us."

Nonetheless, it seems apparent from accounts, in other parts of the globe, dissent is not defined as terrorism.  Discontent is not considered destructive.  The voice of the people is not pernicious.  Possibly, in some places governments are not as powerful as prohibitive parents might be.  Oh, those who reign may try to exert absolute rule; however, the people are less easily "appeased" or patronized.

Many a Persian person may describe a situation different from Americans trust to be true in the Middle East.  Numerous would share, in Iran, were it not for America's invasive input the inhabitants may have eliminated what the United States considers evil.  Indeed, Iranians were working to end the reign of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  However, American intervened, and all changed, for the worse.

The follies of Bush's Iran policy
By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi
International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The confrontation between Iran and the West has developed a new dimension over the detention of several Iranian scholars, journalists and political activists who have been living in the West for years and have recently traveled to their homeland.

What is the root cause of these events?  Part of it is the deep unpopularity of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Internal opposition to his government is becoming increasingly louder as Iranians are recognizing the danger in his foreign policy and his failure to improve the economy.

In December, university students forced him to stop his speech by shouting "death to the dictator."  Iran's Parliament has severely criticized him.  In recent municipal elections, candidates backed by Ahmadinejad received only 4 percent of the vote.

The conservatives who rule Iran are also badly fractured.  The radical faction led by Ahmadinejad is bitterly opposed to the more moderate, pragmatic faction led by former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who advocates accommodation with the West.

The recent arrests should be seen partly as a reaction to these events.  Unable to address Iran's mountain of social, economical and political problems, the hard-liners are trying to create a new crisis with the West in order to distract attention from their problems.

Possibly, this scenario demonstrates that American Administrators have much in common with those they emphasize are part of an "axis of evil."  The need to divert attention dominates policy among world leaders.  A desire to subvert the masses moves many decision-makers, just as it drives many a punitory parent.  When authority figures wish to govern, not of, by or for the people but for the love of power, they subtly and successfully suppress the sensible among us.  

Engineer, and Author David Brin may have said it best, "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible.  The sane are usually attracted by other things than power."  Control is a costly endeavor.  Perhaps, the price is too high for the average reasonable American, or possibly those who no longer view protest as wise, do not realize the expense is not only imprudent, it is counterproductive and detrimental to our own "Homeland Security."

Some of the $75 million has been devoted to the U.S.-funded Radio Farda, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as to VOA satellite TV, which are beaming Persian programs into Iran.  Other portions have been given secretly to exiled Iranian groups, political figures, and nongovernmental organizations to establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.

But Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported.  It must be indigenous.  They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone.  The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.

According to the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis, noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is one of Washington's legal obligations . . .

Thus, Washington's policy of "helping" the cause of democracy in Iran has backfired.  It has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West . . .

The Bush administration should put an end to its misguided policy and immediately declare which organizations and public figures have received funds from the $75 million.  This will make it clear that the scholars, journalists and other figures who travel to Iran have nothing to do with Bush's policy on Iran.

We can hope that one day soon, Americans will find the courage to clarify what is more insidious.  The principles that currently guide American democracy are not egalitarian.  In this nation, appeasement and punishment dominate the dictums.  The Administration, the elites, the influential do not speak for the people; nor do they engage in diplomatic relations that might bring persons of the world together as one.  

If the United States government continues to aggressively assault our "enemies' as an abusive parent might if they perceive the "stranger" as a threat, then we can expect to be attacked.  Should the powers-that-be in the States invoke embargos, again the risk is, this reactive behavior will incite attack.  "Appeasement" will not bring bliss.  Gifts given to lessen the weight of guilt will not gratify or garner good graces.  We cannot buy love; nor can we grow fondness when engaged in a feud.

Thus far, "we" the people have seen what occurs when "our' government does not act in best interests of the people here or abroad.  The Iranians who seek to enrich society are correct.  A democratic system cannot be instigated from the outside.  Fairness grows from within.  Equanimity must evolve naturally if it is to be real, effective, and everlasting.  

Might Americans work to cultivate the principles we espouse and yet have never established before we attempt to shift the paradigm elsewhere.  Let us find a way to make democracy doable here at home.  Perchance, diplomacy will build a bridge.  If only Americans talked among themselves and to each other.  We must speak to "strangers."  Perhaps we will discover similarities.  "We" the people cannot allow ourselves to be treated as children.  We must acknowledge the people who claim to protect us are our abusers.  The power-elite have the authority "we," the little people give them.  America, it is time to stand up.  Let us not fear the foreigner.  With eyes wide open, let us consider those that cause us great harm live in our house.

Democracy Described and Defined . . .

• Bush's Comments In Israel Fuel Anger, By Michael Abramowitz.  Washington Post. Friday, May 16, 2008; Page A08
• Domestic Violence Statistics. An Abuse, Rape and Domestic Violence Aid and Resource Collection.  U.S. Department of Justice.
• Neville Chamberlain on Appeasement (1939)  The History Guide.
• Democrats outraged by Bush "appeasement" remark, By Steve Holland.  Reuters. May 15, 2008
• The Treaty of Versailles and the Impact on Germany. By Walter S. Zapotoczny.  2005
• US generals 'will quit' if Bush orders Iran attack, By Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter.  Times Online. February 25, 2007
• The follies of Bush's Iran policy,  By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi.  International Herald Tribune. May 30, 2007
• The Populist Movement; A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America, By Lawrence Goodwyn.  Oxford University Press. 1978

Read The Full Article:
http://www.BeThink.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=908

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!